Gareth O'Callaghan nails what many of us are thinking...

3xh

odyssey06 wrote: »

Well new data takes time to 'bubble up' to health authorities and then into government and then laws.

Masks have been recommended since May in enclosed public places but not mandated.

In March:
Did we have the masks?
Did we have the knowledge re: relative transmission by droplets \ smaller particles \ contact and surfaces?
Did we have the knowledge re: presymptomatic transmission?

Is it strange?
I have posted on this thread and masks thread that in Ireland we were very slow to come around on masks and praised the Czech response.
And some of that was undoubtedly due to health authorities wanted to protect insufficient stocks of them.
It took the nurses union badgering the HSE to get them to change their rules on when masks were permitted in health settings i.e. as staff wanted to wear them more.
Infections in health care staff dropped dramatically after that.

How does that have any bearing on whether we should be complying with the law and wearing masks in enclosed public spaces?
Well, better late than never.

My point regarding all of the above is that if you don’t openly support the consensus of everything that’s released (rules-wise) you’re a conspiracy theorist, an anti-masker, etc etc)

Yet supporters of the rules can be wrong too but because they follow, to the letter, the rules (however often updated) they’re somehow more correct, holier and worthy citizens of public services and the rest of us are just thick degenerates that should be stripped of their access to society.

*the stripping of access to society for those not taking the vaccine was said by numerous posters in the vaccine thread btw. Just to clarify.

irishblessing

3xh wrote: »

And yet here is the link to the HSE themselves that recommend 13yr olds or older wear a mask. So which is it, irishblessing?

Don’t get me wrong, wear what you want and have fun making nice colourful cotton masks with any children you may have but for every guideline you can show from an expert, there’s another expert contradicting a previous given.

The HSE, however, appear to have the widespread support of the population to date. You wouldn’t be advocating implementing your own ideas and best practices on all this Covid stuff?

https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/face-masks-disposable-gloves.html

The HSE obviously have not decided yet to implement the WHO's findings and recommendations. The questions for "which is it," belongs to the HSE not me. It's not my own ideas. Are you saying you have no idea what WHO and UNICEF has recently said on the matter regarding children aged 6-11 wearing masks? Wow.

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-children-and-masks-related-to-covid-19

3xh

irishblessing wrote: »

The HSE obviously have not decided yet to implement the WHO's findings and recommendations. The questions for "which is it," belongs to the HSE not me. It's not my own ideas. Are you saying you have no idea what WHO and UNICEF has recently said on the matter regarding children aged 6-11 wearing masks? Wow.

https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/q-a-children-and-masks-related-to-covid-19

The restrictions and caveats on whether children under 12 (according to WHO in your link) should wear a mask or not basically say don’t wear a mask. Don’t just focus on the age numbers. Focus on the conditions mentioned under which it becomes ‘recommended’

Further, according to your own link, the WHO say themselves follow your local advice/guidelines. If parents here start trying to force their children aged 10 to wear a mask in school, they’re as much in breach of HSE guidelines as someone not wearing a mask when they should.

odyssey06

3xh wrote: »

My point regarding all of the above is that if you don’t openly support the consensus of everything that’s released (rules-wise) you’re a conspiracy theorist, an anti-masker, etc etc)
Yet supporters of the rules can be wrong too but because they follow, to the letter, the rules (however often updated) they’re somehow more correct, holier and worthy citizens of public services and the rest of us are just thick degenerates that should be stripped of their access to society.

That's not a point. That's just a rant to be honest.
You are being fairly binary yourself there.

When a lot of the opposition to masks comes from conspiracy theorists, that has to be called out when it occurs.
A large cohort of those who question and oppose the use of masks are fairly quick to throw out terms like muzzles and 'maskzis' and pro-mask.
That seems to have passed by your radar?

And yes there are thick degenerates out there who seem incapable of following any rule, law whatever on littering, wearing masks, smoking in public, parking laws. They have no argument against masks except FO to the world.

You'll have to point out where I categorise all such concerns \ queries about mask wearing in such terms though?

You are also ignoring an important difference between what is the law of the land and what is a guidelines \ recommendation. And yes that is important for citizens and their access to society. That applies to masks as it does to smoking in public, drink driving laws, drug driving laws etc.
It is more correct the follow the law of the land.

Yes the laws and guidelines may turn out to be wrong or ineffectual or unnecessary, but we act on the basis on the best available information. And when it comes to masks, the evidence that I see here and abroad is that this is something we should be doing.

irishblessing

3xh wrote: »

The restrictions and caveats on whether children under 12 (according to WHO in your link) should wear a mask or not basically say don’t wear a mask. Don’t just focus on the age numbers. Focus on the conditions mentioned under which it becomes ‘recommended’

Further, according to your own link, the WHO say themselves follow your local advice/guidelines. If parents here start trying to force their children aged 10 to wear a mask in school, they’re as much in breach of HSE guidelines as someone not wearing a mask when they should.

You have a really obnoxious posting style. First of all don't tell me what not to focus on, especially when I've read the whole release and I know well what the conditions are. I never said nor indicated that only age numbers should be considered. But the fact is that the HSE have not included these findings nor updated their recommendations to include these findings and conditions. You really need to be more respectful and considerate when you post. Very arrogant.

TheChizler

irishblessing wrote: »

Young kids, that's who. And they're all going back into their primary schools with very little to no social distancing and no mandatory mask measure. In light of children aged 10 and older show to contract and spread the virus at least as well as adults do. And then they're going back into their homes, in which adults go back into their workplaces...

I didn't expect kids to be the follow up to a response to an analogy between masks and condoms but ok..

For the record I think masks make sense in the environment of a school where you can't physically distance and you're in prolonged contact with lots of people.

irishblessing

3xh wrote: »

I saw the report out yesterday where they suggested a sneeze spreads it 8 metres. Now that figure is being used as further justification for masks.

Once again, the goalposts change in this never ending argument to support and validate the wearing of masks.

TheChizler wrote: »

Who doesn't sneeze into their arm or a tissue? Disgusting people I wouldn't trust to do anything right with regards to the virus, that's who.

irishblessing wrote: »

Young kids, that's who. And they're all going back into their primary schools with very little to no social distancing and no mandatory mask measure. In light of children aged 10 and older show to contract and spread the virus at least as well as adults do. And then they're going back into their homes, in which adults go back into their workplaces...

TheChizler wrote: »

I didn't expect kids to be the follow up to a response to an analogy between masks and condoms but ok..

For the record I think masks make sense in the environment of a school where you can't physically distance and you're in prolonged contact with lots of people.

My response followed this sequence, nothing to do with the condom analogy.
Yes, they're not going to prevent every case, but in an environment in which most schools cannot socially distance, I think it should be strongly looked at. Didn't Mike Ryan of WHO (and an Irish epidemiologist) recommend them for over 10's?

plodder

Claire Byrne just interviewed a doctor about masks and school kids. The WHO recommending them now for school children over the age of 12 on same basis as adults, and from 6-12 based on more specific assessments. I imagine this advice will translate to our schools and appropriate guidelines for the primary sector will be put in place.

3xh

irishblessing wrote: »

You have a really obnoxious posting style. First of all don't tell me what not to focus on, especially when I've read the whole release and I know well what the conditions are. I never said nor indicated that only age numbers should be considered. But the fact is that the HSE have not included these findings nor updated their recommendations to include these findings and conditions. You really need to be more respectful and considerate when you post. Very arrogant.

I’m not going to construct a post based around your feelings. I answered directly to your post in a clear manner; you said the WHO are recommending children aged 10 upwards should wear masks and pasted a link in support.

I pointed directly to the caveats with which that guidance should be taken. The caveats are such that it’s basically impossible for it to be implemented through recommendation. Especially in Ireland with our figures. If you’re choosing what not to focus on because I pointed its meaning and significance out to you, well, good luck so.

I was also noting how those of us here who supposedly support the Irish rules and guidelines around Covid because they came from the experts were now openly calling for a change. In relation to people saying ‘let’s take a step back here and relax’, what is the difference? There is none.

3xh

odyssey06 wrote: »

That's not a point. That's just a rant to be honest.
You are being fairly binary yourself there.

When a lot of the opposition to masks comes from conspiracy theorists, that has to be called out when it occurs.
A large cohort of those who question and oppose the use of masks are fairly quick to throw out terms like muzzles and 'maskzis' and pro-mask.
That seems to have passed by your radar?

And yes there are thick degenerates out there who seem incapable of following any rule, law whatever on littering, wearing masks, smoking in public, parking laws. They have no argument against masks except FO to the world.

You'll have to point out where I categorise all such concerns \ queries about mask wearing in such terms though?

You are also ignoring an important difference between what is the law of the land and what is a guidelines \ recommendation. And yes that is important for citizens and their access to society. That applies to masks as it does to smoking in public, drink driving laws, drug driving laws etc.
It is more correct the follow the law of the land.

Yes the laws and guidelines may turn out to be wrong or ineffectual or unnecessary, but we act on the basis on the best available information. And when it comes to masks, the evidence that I see here and abroad is that this is something we should be doing.

There’s a lot in this post that’s very subjective and we could argue for ages about (like all encompassing name tags, bringing in drink/drug laws)

It just amazes me how people so on board the ‘Latest rule‘s out, must follow in totality and castigate anyone who doesn’t’-show don’t see the disparity in mitigation procedures between all the various regions/countries and their own figures. It’s a clear sign of inability to critically think.
Case in point; the ‘mandatory’ quarantine that never was and still isn’t. People who get their news from their morning Facebook feed or mate spout it as being mandatory. Yet when you point it out it’s not, they sheepishly try to say ‘ah yeah, but you should anyway’ instead of saying, ‘oh right, I misunderstood that’

So the ‘other side’ can be just as thick and ignorant, tbf.

Anyway, I respect your view on why you want or choose to wear a mask. Among other mitigation steps. It’s the vocal ‘us intellectuals versus you simpletons killing granny’ that I’m highlighting.

irishblessing

3xh wrote: »

And yet here is the link to the HSE themselves that recommend 13yr olds or older wear a mask. So which is it, irishblessing?

Don’t get me wrong, wear what you want and have fun making nice colourful cotton masks with any children you may have but for every guideline you can show from an expert, there’s another expert contradicting a previous given.

The HSE, however, appear to have the widespread support of the population to date. You wouldn’t be advocating implementing your own ideas and best practices on all this Covid stuff?

https://www2.hse.ie/conditions/coronavirus/face-masks-disposable-gloves.html

3xh wrote: »

I’m not going to construct a post based around your feelings. I answered directly to your post in a clear manner; you said the WHO are recommending children aged 10 upwards should wear masks and pasted a link in support.

I pointed directly to the caveats with which that guidance should be taken. The caveats are such that it’s basically impossible for it to be implemented through recommendation. Especially in Ireland with our figures. If you’re choosing what not to focus on because I pointed its meaning and significance out to you, well, good luck so.

I was also noting how those of us here who supposedly support the Irish rules and guidelines around Covid because they came from the experts were now openly calling for a change. In relation to people saying ‘let’s take a step back here and relax’, what is the difference? There is none.

You arrogantly and ignorantly asked me if I was implementing and advocating my own ideas around masks, when it was you who apparently had no idea about what WHO and Unicef have recently published, until I pointed it out. You didn't point sh!t out to me pal, I posted it, not you. Then you read my link and assumed that I didn't know what was in it and telling me what to focus on. You baselessly continue to wrongly assume what I am or am not focusing on. You now talk about caveats as if I'm not the one who posted the link to them. Are you always this much hard work? :rolleyes: Where would we be without 3xh interpreting our own posted links for us and telling us what to think and focus on. What a favour, thanks so much. :pac::pac:

Those caveats are actually not impossible to implement here. Would you like to elaborate further?

3xh

irishblessing wrote: »

You arrogantly and ignorantly asked me if I was implementing and advocating my own ideas around masks, when it was you who apparently had no idea about what WHO and Unicef have recently published, until I pointed it out. You didn't point sh!t out to me pal, I posted it, not you. Then you read my link and assumed that I didn't know what was in it and telling me what to focus on. You baselessly continue to wrongly assume what I am or am not focusing on. You now talk about caveats as if I'm not the one who posted the link to them. Are you always this much hard work? :rolleyes: Where would we be without 3xh interpreting our own posted links for us and telling us what to think and focus on. What a favour, thanks so much. :pac::pac:

Those caveats are actually not impossible to implement here. Would you like to elaborate further?

The 6 bullet points under the 6-11yr old guidance. You think Ireland meets the first one? Regarding transmission rates?

Who is responsible for the 6 year old children putting on and wearing a mask? The parent to teach them correctly? The teacher? You think this argument won’t come up?! What if Johnny drops his in the muck? ‘The school should provide a new one’ or ‘tell him to rub it clean, he’ll be grand’?

Another of the clauses refers to the children’s exposure to vulnerable people. Another catch-all clause that’s hard to critically/empirically rule on so let’s just do as we’ve been doing the past 6 months and implement it sweepingly anyway. It’s easier!

The rest of your post is hard to decipher.

irishblessing

3xh wrote: »

The 6 bullet points under the 6-11yr old guidance. You think Ireland meets the first one? Regarding transmission rates?

Who is responsible for the 6 year old children putting on and wearing a mask? The parent to teach them correctly? The teacher? You think this argument won’t come up?! What if Johnny drops his in the muck? ‘The school should provide a new one’ or ‘tell him to rub it clean, he’ll be grand’?

Another of the clauses refers to the children’s exposure to vulnerable people. Another catch-all clause that’s hard to critically/empirically rule on so let’s just do as we’ve been doing the past 6 months and implement it sweepingly anyway. It’s easier!

The rest of your post is hard to decipher.

Well the case threshold to meet the criteria of "widespread" isn't for me to say, that would be a consideration for NEPHET.

Who is responsible - parents and teachers both. I'm under no illusions as to what will come up or won't, but the possibilities can certainly be discussed and planned for. Such as extra PPE (masks) being provided by the school. I read on another thread here that has many teachers on it, that many classes and almost certainly every school will have vulnerable students, and furthermore students living with vulnerable family. Seems like a prudent reality to start from.

I certainly wouldn't feel that those factors, or caveats as you put them, would be "impossible" to implement.

3xh

irishblessing wrote: »

Well the case threshold to meet the criteria of "widespread" isn't for me to say, that would be a consideration for NEPHET.

Who is responsible - parents and teachers both. I'm under no illusions as to what will come up or won't, but the possibilities can certainly be discussed and planned for. Such as extra PPE (masks) being provided by the school. I read on another thread here that has many teachers on it, that many classes and almost certainly every school will have vulnerable students, and furthermore students living with vulnerable family. Seems like a prudent reality to start from.

I certainly wouldn't feel that those factors, or caveats as you put them, would be "impossible" to implement.

Funny how after you found and read the WHO link yourself, you suggested implementing the wearing of masks here without having an iota of what those transmission rates, to which the WHO refer, are.

Your answer now is, well it’s better than the alternative so why not do it (my paraphrasing).

Here’s some updated info on transmission rates, hospitalisation rates, etc from our very own accountability process on our own local figures from just yesterday.
https://twitter.com/mlmcnamaratd/status/1298677301933232131?s=12

You’ll note the question was asked by the chair, who pays for all this if we’re locked down again? Any lockdown will use the published figures to justify it. The very people who are telling you to wear a mask nearly everywhere are telling you a second lockdown is nigh. Schools can barely afford to turn the heat on in winter and I know of kids who are told to bring their own hand towels in under the guise of ‘being environmentally aware’
Getting schools to provide masks is........unlikely. It’ll fall on the stretched parents.

Hotblack Desiato

paw patrol wrote: »

the flu vaccine is a "best guess" as to what the flu strain(s) will be that year. I think it's 3 different strains.
They haven't a rashers if that guess ( or educated guess if you will ) is accurate or not until after the event.

The flu vaccine is not the vaccine to try prove your point on.

I never said otherwise. I was asked why we don't have a lockdown over flu, which is an idiotic question and I gave one reason why it is an idiotic question.

Also there is evidence that even if the flu vaccine is not quite the right strain, it reduces the severity of illness for those who do catch the flu.

Swing and a miss.

irishblessing

3xh wrote: »

Funny how after you found and read the WHO link yourself, you suggested implementing the wearing of masks here without having an iota of what those transmission rates, to which the WHO refer, are.

Your answer now is, well it’s better than the alternative so why not do it (my paraphrasing).

Here’s some updated info on transmission rates, hospitalisation rates, etc from our very own accountability process on our own local figures from just yesterday.
https://twitter.com/mlmcnamaratd/status/1298677301933232131?s=12

You’ll note the question was asked by the chair, who pays for all this if we’re locked down again? Any lockdown will use the published figures to justify it. The very people who are telling you to wear a mask nearly everywhere are telling you a second lockdown is nigh. Schools can barely afford to turn the heat on in winter and I know of kids who are told to bring their own hand towels in under the guise of ‘being environmentally aware’
Getting schools to provide masks is........unlikely. It’ll fall on the stretched parents.

LOL, get over yourself. I didn't just find it and read it, it was reported in the news days ago. "Your answer now?" As if I had any other answer, when? When I first read it? I only said it was up to NEPHET to decide an appropriate threshold with regards to widespread transmission and young children wearing masks, not me. Now you think I haven't "one iota" as to transmission rates. Calm down. Very strange, bizarre line of reasoning as is the rest of your ranting... The government can approve and provide funding for any new measures they choose. Just because you fail to have a forward thinking, solution oriented mindset it actually doesn't mean sh*t when it comes to running this country.

3xh

irishblessing wrote: »

LOL, get over yourself. I didn't just find it and read it, it was reported in the news days ago. "Your answer now?" As if I had any other answer, when? When I first read it? I only said it was up to NEPHET to decide an appropriate threshold with regards to widespread transmission and young children wearing masks, not me. Now you think I haven't "one iota" as to transmission rates. Calm down. Very strange, bizarre line of reasoning as is the rest of your ranting... The government can approve and provide funding for any new measures they choose. Just because you fail to have a forward thinking, solution oriented mindset it actually doesn't mean sh*t when it comes to running this country.

It’s NPHET.

NPHET‘s role in all this is the easiest job of the lot; Recommend full and total shutdown for just one case because any increase in deaths, transmissions, etc, validates their original advice. Any costs to their recommendations are not taken into account by them. Money is not their concern.
But ‘you know that’, I’m sure.

You were pushing/suggesting NPHET adopt the WHO’s advice in your link regarding masks for 6-11 yr olds. Yet that WHO advice is predicated on an area’s localised rates, among 5 other headings. I asked you ‘what are the rates the WHO talk about when they suggest this?’ You said you didn’t know.

You just blindly called for masks for even younger children because you saw/read/heard the news of that WHO advice. This is what is so wrong with the lack of critical thinking nowadays.

And as for, ‘The government can approve and provide funding for any new measures they choose’ Sweet mother. I can’t spend time on this as it’s not directly relevant to the mask question in hand but if you think that’s the answer to how The Government might implement the WHO advice above, I’ll say this......the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples’ money.

I’m guessing you chose not to watch the oireachtas video above? The question to the minister, ‘how do you propose we pay for all this if you advocate another lockdown?’ is real, irishblessing.

irishblessing

3xh wrote: »

It’s NPHET.

NPHET‘s role in all this is the easiest job of the lot; Recommend full and total shutdown for just one case because any increase in deaths, transmissions, etc, validates their original advice. Any costs to their recommendations are not taken into account by them. Money is not their concern.
But ‘you know that’, I’m sure.

You were pushing/suggesting NPHET adopt the WHO’s advice in your link regarding masks for 6-11 yr olds. Yet that WHO advice is predicated on an area’s localised rates, among 5 other headings. I asked you ‘what are the rates the WHO talk about when they suggest this?’ You said you didn’t know.

You just blindly called for masks for even younger children because you saw/read/heard the news of that WHO advice. This is what is so wrong with the lack of critical thinking nowadays.

And as for, ‘The government can approve and provide funding for any new measures they choose’ Sweet mother. I can’t spend time on this as it’s not directly relevant to the mask question in hand but if you think that’s the answer to how The Government might implement the WHO advice above, I’ll say this......the problem with socialism is you eventually run out of other peoples’ money.

I’m guessing you chose not to watch the oireachtas video above? The question to the minister, ‘how do you propose we pay for all this if you advocate another lockdown?’ is real, irishblessing.

You're a grammar nazi too, shocker! :pac:

Hey everyone, did you know you were "pushing" things merely by posting links with information here? The dramatics... :rolleyes:
And you're also a bald faced liar. Point out where you asked me what the rates are and then I said I don't know. Bizarre behaviour.

I also didn't "call for" anything. Point out where I did that. Once again, very strange behaviour, you apparently love to make things up. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if that is some sort of disorder where you read into things with an agenda that simply isn't there....

I did choose to watch the unrelated 13 minuted video you posted actually. It wasn't even the first time I've seen it but I did humour you and watched it again. More assumptions and dramatics from yourself. Relating comments out the side of the mouth about another possible lockdown, which hasn't happened, actually has nothing to do with WHO's released guidance and our ability to consider and implement in now/in the very near future. You really need to reel it in here. Getting hysterical about how we'll *theoretically* pay for a bit of extra PPE in the schools for lower income families based upon scenarios that haven't even happened is just crazy.

3xh

irishblessing wrote: »

You're a grammar nazi too, shocker! :pac:

Hey everyone, did you know you were "pushing" things merely by posting links with information here? The dramatics... :rolleyes:
And you're also a bald faced liar. Point out where you asked me what the rates are and then I said I don't know. Bizarre behaviour.

I also didn't "call for" anything. Point out where I did that. Once again, very strange behaviour, you apparently love to make things up. I'm honestly beginning to wonder if that is some sort of disorder where you read into things with an agenda that simply isn't there....

I did choose to watch the unrelated 13 minuted video you posted actually. It wasn't even the first time I've seen it but I did humour you and watched it again. More assumptions and dramatics from yourself. Relating comments out the side of the mouth about another possible lockdown, which hasn't happened, actually has nothing to do with WHO's released guidance and our ability to consider and implement in now/in the very near future. You really need to reel it in here. Getting hysterical about how we'll *theoretically* pay for a bit of extra PPE in the schools for lower income families based upon scenarios that haven't even happened is just crazy.

Ok, the WHO link you posted recommends children 6-11yrs wear a mask if the six caveats mentioned on their website are met. The first caveat is rates in a region. I asked you what are those rates. As in, what is the accepted measure that the WHO believe if a region’s transmission rate goes above it, it’s grounds to implement the wearing of masks for 6-11yr olds. You said you didn’t know, it’s for NPHET to decide.

I queried why were you linking this WHO report if your view was basically, ‘I’m no expert but I heard about this in the news’ Were you not calling for masks for younger children? That is the crux of the WHO report and why it made the news when you heard about it earlier in the week. Do you support the idea of 6 yr olds wearing a mask in schools or not? One of the reasons against such implementation according to the WHO themselves is the adverse psychological effects it may have on those children.

I didn’t mention out the side of my mouth nor did Donnelly out of his that a second lockdown has happened. He said himself it’s a real possibility though. Numerous times. I was addressing how that would be economic suicide. But someone else will pay for it all. I suspect you don’t fully understand where that money comes from. Just if you shout and demand long and loud enough, someone will stump it up.

By the way, you mention PPE for lower income families. Can a higher income family get free PPE too? Let me guess, a higher income family is one that earns more than you right? No? So you can put a € figure on it then.

irishblessing

3xh wrote: »

Ok, the WHO link you posted recommends children 6-11yrs wear a mask if the six caveats mentioned on their website are met. The first caveat is rates in a region. I asked you what are those rates. As in, what is the accepted measure that the WHO believe if a region’s transmission rate goes above it, it’s grounds to implement the wearing of masks for 6-11yr olds. You said you didn’t know, it’s for NPHET to decide.

I queried why were you linking this WHO report if your view was basically, ‘I’m no expert but I heard about this in the news’ Were you not calling for masks for younger children? That is the crux of the WHO report and why it made the news when you heard about it earlier in the week. Do you support the idea of 6 yr olds wearing a mask in schools or not? One of the reasons against such implementation according to the WHO themselves is the adverse psychological effects it may have on those children.

I didn’t mention out the side of my mouth nor did Donnelly out of his that a second lockdown has happened. He said himself it’s a real possibility though. Numerous times. I was addressing how that would be economic suicide. But someone else will pay for it all. I suspect you don’t fully understand where that money comes from. Just if you shout and demand long and loud enough, someone will stump it up.

By the way, you mention PPE for lower income families. Can a higher income family get free PPE too? Let me guess, a higher income family is one that earns more than you right? No? So you can put a € figure on it then.

I am not going to engage with you anymore. I never said the things you claim - my god you are as bad as Trump lying/twisting things up until it suits your own agenda. You couldn't actually quote where I said those things you keep claiming because you can't, it isn't there. I have seen some twisting on some threads before but this takes the grand prize, never seen someone do it at such a high level. You can argue with yourself from now on as far as I'm concerned, you clearly enjoy it!

feargale

paw patrol wrote: »

that isn't what I said that's what jedward (and others) said.

But the point remains, that the protest at the weekend received more backlash in terms of covid19 than the BLM one did. That is hypocrisy at its finest

This is by Aine Corry in Trinity News:

"It’s a scary time to be an exchange student in France. With rising political tensions, there are weekly unavoidable protests right on our doorstep. Many Trinity students studying in France have come face-to-face with the gilets jaunes or yellow vests, and some have had some alarming experiences. These include being warned to stay inside by accommodation offices because of protestors out with “the intent to kill”, being stuck on buses in traffic for hours while protestors stole tyres from cars to use as material for bonfires, getting tear-gassed, and witnessing an attempt to blow up a Métro station. The civil unrest in France is at an all time high, with the yellow vest protestors shaking the country."

These French gob****es are in direct line from the Jacobin lunatics of the 1790s. They are not to be told what to do by anybody, but they assume the right to tell others what to do, to take over cities and countries and even set them alight.
These are the gob****e who are being aped by our own homegrown irresponsible arseholes who flout regulations and put lives at risk for their juvenile kicks.

The only good thing that has come from Yellow Pack (sorry, Yellow Vest) is uniting the lunatic left and the lunatic right. It should make the gendarme's job easier when it comes to batoning the bas***ds.

Here is a selection of previous YV demands re Ireland. Note the opening words "we demand." One can demand when one has a popular mandate to govern. In the absense of that one proposes. So much for their understanding of democracy.

"We demand, 1. Citizens initiated Referenda.
What is this? A Citizens initiated Referenda is a law that allows any member of the public to propose a referendum and bring it to a non-binding vote if over 10 percent of voters sign a petition to trigger it. ( and lets see thembp respect an unfavourable result. Some chance!.)
2. That Leo Varadkar declare a general election and resign. (The people get no say on if Leo is to stay or go.)
15. Abolish the TV Licence.



I am a septuagenarian with underlying health issues. If I get this awful virus I'm most likely finished. Are you telling me that I should be said by a bunch of baboons, most of whom were too lazy to take the leaving cert, in preference to the preponderance of qualified medical opinion?
And before you start feeling sorry for me, I've had a full life. There are people out there half my age and less who are being robbed of life by this pandemic.

paw patrol wrote: »

It's hard to protest about the restrictions by obeying the restrictions , how hard is that to understand?

Very hard to understand. In fact, impossible to understand. If you want to protest against new drink driving laws must you drive your car while pissed? Have you noticed the nationwide outrage over Clifden and its results? Did you see any of those outraged people out on the streets protesting, with or without masks?
You can write to the papers, go to Joe Duffy or Katie Hannon, you have social media, you have ways of protesting that my generation never knew, and above all, if you are out of short pants you have a vote. But still you need a day out to protest, with an utterly irresponsible disregard for the welfare of the public.

Hotblack Desiato

feargale wrote: »

"We demand, 1. Citizens initiated Referenda.

Hmmm I wonder what the first two topics they want voted on would be... reinstate the 8th amendment and Irexit, no doubt :rolleyes:

These utter gobshytes and sociopaths should not be entertained in any way. The public are getting angry at the excessive restraint of the Gardai. The public need to be protected from threats to public safety which is exactly what these knuckledraggers are.

weldoninhio

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Hmmm I wonder what the first two topics they want voted on would be... reinstate the 8th amendment and Irexit, no doubt :rolleyes:

These utter gobshytes and sociopaths should not be entertained in any way. The public are getting angry at the excessive restraint of the Gardai. The public need to be protected from threats to public safety which is exactly what these knuckledraggers are.

In fairness it works in NZ, I also believe Belgium have it too. It would ensure that the govt follow the will of the people too.

One example would’ve been the vote last year in the Dail as to whether reverse the anchor baby rule that passed massively a few years ago. They were voting to go against the will of the people, luckily it didn’t pass. A citizen led referendum would have put them back into their box in relation to that.

There would be some cranks using it, but 10k signatures within a 12 months period might hamstring them a bit. Could even raise it to 15 or 20k signatures so only serious matters make it through.